• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tiger Woods - Special Treatment?

Chaddelamancha said:
That's just it. The ruling committee said the drop was legal. When Tiger signed his scorecard, both he and the ruling committee thought it was a legal score.
Click to expand...

And the ruling committee had no right according to the rules to do so. Just cause the official looks the other way doesn't mean it didn't happen.
 
Lutherf said:
What other professional sport doesn't excuse a player from a minor rule infractions when the official doesn't call foul? If this issue gets pushed it will result in instant replay rules for golf which will mean that a 3 hour round will end up taking 2 days.
Click to expand...

Don't care.. we are talking about golf which is rigid and archaic. Masters is the only tourney which doesn't have rule officials at each hole as player in the tourney are expect to hold up Bobby Jone's type of honor.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Good afternoon 2M - hope all is well.

My point, from the beginning, is that regardless of the circumstances surrounding the "investigation", the nature of golf is self-regulation, honor and integrity, and the moment that Tiger Woods found out he had illegally dropped the ball on the 15th hole he should have assigned himself a two stroke penalty, if he became aware of it before he signed his card or he should have self-disqualified, withdrawn, if he found out after he signed the card.

Getting off on a technicality like this is not a fine moment for a man who's trying to recover his reputation. Had he withdrawn, he would have benefitted immensely just from that action. He benefits not at all from this as it is, nor does the Masters.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I've always thought of the PGA tour as a knife fight for money, golf's traditions notwithstanding.:cool:
 
Chaddelamancha said:
That's just it. The ruling committee said the drop was legal. When Tiger signed his scorecard, both he and the ruling committee thought it was a legal score.
Click to expand...

If the ruling committee (people whose job it is to know the intracacies of every rule of golf) says the drop was legal, why would Tiger believe it was illegal and asses himself a two shot penalty, when he was told it wasn't a violation. In that case he'd be arbitrarily signing an incorrect scorecard and would be disqualified.

Tiger is by all accounts an arrogant asshole as a person, and a bit of a dick on the course. But I can't believe for a second he would intentionally do something he knew was incorrect in front of millions of people and even risk a DQ in the Masters. From everything I have read, I believe the correct course of action was taken, no matter who the golfer was. As for the 14 year old, he was told he was on the clock for slow play earlier in the round, which means they keep a close eye on your time. Again, the right thing was done when he was assessed a penalty.
 
WI Crippler said:
If the ruling committee (people whose job it is to know the intracacies of every rule of golf) says the drop was legal, why would Tiger believe it was illegal and asses himself a two shot penalty, when he was told it wasn't a violation. In that case he'd be arbitrarily signing an incorrect scorecard and would be disqualified.

Tiger is by all accounts an arrogant asshole as a person, and a bit of a dick on the course. But I can't believe for a second he would intentionally do something he knew was incorrect in front of millions of people and even risk a DQ in the Masters. From everything I have read, I believe the correct course of action was taken, no matter who the golfer was. As for the 14 year old, he was told he was on the clock for slow play earlier in the round, which means they keep a close eye on your time. Again, the right thing was done when he was assessed a penalty.
Click to expand...

I agree. I am on your side.
 
Chaddelamancha said:
I agree. I am on your side.
Click to expand...

I know. You are the only one making sense to me in this thread. Everyone else seems to be beginning with "Tiger gets special treatment" and then twisting speculation as though they are facts to make it fit the confirmation bias.
 
austrianecon said:
And the ruling committee had no right according to the rules to do so. Just cause the official looks the other way doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Click to expand...

Before 2012, Woods would have been disqualified for signing an incorrect scorecard. Under new rules enacted by the United States Golf Association and R&A in 2011, a player can have penalty strokes added afterward when facts were not reasonably presented at the time of scorecard signing.:cool:
 
Jack Hays said:
Before 2012, Woods would have been disqualified for signing an incorrect scorecard. Under new rules enacted by the United States Golf Association and R&A in 2011, a player can have penalty strokes added afterward when facts were not reasonably presented at the time of scorecard signing.:cool:
Click to expand...

You may be forgetting his interview after the round. He specifically said that he played the ball back two yards as that would give him the perfect distance to play the shot. So it seems he was clearly breaking the rules. Perhaps if he had not said this then the new rule would have been properly applied.
 
The Man said:
Of course Tiger Woods gets special treatment, he's the only reason most people watch golf. Woods in The Masters = ratings = money for CBS, so CBS is going to do everything in their power to make sure he's not disqualified, even though any other golfer would have been.
Click to expand...


He's the only reason racist trash watch golf. Good riddance if DQed. The trash that only watches for tiger can't afford 99% of the stuff thats advertised during the masters anyway.

I still would love to know how it is they miss a 6 foot differential in a game of inches. I would've been fine with the 2 stroke penalty if they had not already reviewed the case and said he did nothing wrong, when he blatantly did do something wrong and even a cursory reexamination of the film would have showed it. So they cheated to let him off in the first place.
 
washunut said:
You may be forgetting his interview after the round. He specifically said that he played the ball back two yards as that would give him the perfect distance to play the shot. So it seems he was clearly breaking the rules. Perhaps if he had not said this then the new rule would have been properly applied.
Click to expand...

His statement could also be interpreted that he did not know he was not applying the rule correctly. Personally, I think he should have DQ'ed himself.:cool:
 
CanadaJohn said:
Had he withdrawn, he would have benefitted immensely just from that action. He benefits not at all from this as it is, nor does the Masters.
Click to expand...

Benefitted? How exactly? He certainly wouldn't have gained any respect from people like Brandel Chumplee who hate everything he does, and everyone else seems to be perfectly okay with rule 33 being applied here.

I don't think a WD would have changed a thing.
 
vendur said:
He's the only reason racist trash watch golf. Good riddance if DQed. The trash that only watches for tiger can't afford 99% of the stuff thats advertised during the masters anyway.
Click to expand...

Dude, what? Really??? If this is true, then prove it.
 
Ofc he gets preferential treatment.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Yeah, Sergio Garcia and Fuzzy Zoeller certainly gave him special treatment for which they had to publicly apologise.
Click to expand...

Those public apologies are always complete nonsense. They don't change anything about public perception. I believe he referred to it as "a silly little comment". BS! For once I'd like to see one of these guys who makes a racist comment to the press say something like "I'm a racist, and I'll try to keep comments like that private in the future". I'd have more respect for that than an insincere apology.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom